This Can't be Right

As soon as this hit the wire, all that "Iran suspended their nuclear weapons program in 2002," talk went out the window (again, no one on the left apologizing or admitting they were wrong)

I know a deterrent is needed to handling Iran's mullahs and Ahmedinewhackjob, but I doubt if Obama has the cahonies for this, nor anyone in his upcoming administration (and surely those who voted for him) would publicly support it.
And since this "source" is of the anonymous kind, it may not be verified anytime soon and therefore I can't really believe that this is true and/or accurate. I mean Charles Krauthammer suggested it:

"How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush’s greatest contribution to nuclear peace would be to issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy’s language while changing the names of the miscreants:

'It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.'

This should be followed with a simple explanation: “As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people."

As did Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with Canada's spy agency, CSIS, who wrote when suggesting that Iran would suffer at worst, 28 million fatalities, while Israel would suffer considerably less...

"All out nuclear war between Israel and Iran: a doomsday scenario that we all fear deeply. A new study compiled by the US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), headed by former Pentagon analyst Anthony H. Cordesman, explored just such a nightmare scenario, noting that it could lead to the death of between 16- 28 million Iranian civilians, and 200-800 thousand Israelis…

Given certain conditions, Israel could potentially survive such a nuclear scenario, the study found. Iran, on the other hand, would be completely and utterly obliterated. “Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of term, though Israeli recovery is theoretically possible in population and economic terms,” wrote Cordesman, who compiled this study entitled “Iran, Israel, and Nuclear War"

The bottom line, according to this study, is that Israel quite simply has more potent and effective bombs. Israel currently has a 1megaton (mt) nuclear bomb, whereas Iran does not yet have the ability to develop a bomb with more than 100 kilotons of power. What this means, in essence, is that the Israeli bomb can lead to three times as many casualties as its Iranian counterpart (chiefly due to third-degree burns), and has an “area of extreme lethality” (the range within which a nuclear bomb is fatal) ten-times as great…

Cordseman also noted that Iran would have lower fission yields, and less accurate force into cluster targeting on Israel’s two largest urban complexes, and that the Iranian side would also most likely be thwarted by Israel’s missile defense systems. Notable among these is the “Arrow 2” anti-ballistic missile which could most potentially shoot down most.

And unbelievably, so did a tough-talking Sen. Hillary Clinton in an interview on Good Morning America. ABC's Chris Cuomo asked her what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, to which she said:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

But I believe all this American "talk" would be moot anyways, since Israel would hit them first,
like they did to Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor before it went critical in 1981.

Messy.